This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think the reason men don't want to be financially supported by women is that they don't want to be dependent on women. This is wholly separate from the question of whether men would want a life of effortless luxury if it were presented to them with literally no strings attached, or with strings they'd find more acceptable to their pride.
I would certainly like a life of effortless luxury. This isn't to say I want to laze around on a sofa all day, but I would love the security of an unlimited bank account to fall back on while I got on with the activities I'm actually interested in, which I'll enjoy more if I'm not doing them for profit. (I love writing, teaching, public speaking, even acting - and all of them become more of a slog if my next meal depends on them than if I'm doing them for the fun of it.)
I'm not looking to marry some wealthy heiress to support me, but this is because I think such an option, even if it were especially available to me, would have a variety of hidden downsides, from ethical objections to deceiving someone into believing I love her for personal gain, to discomfort with the idea of dependency. The chief appeal of effortless financial independence would be the personal freedom it brings, and being on a wealthy wife's leash would cancel it out entirely.
More options
Context Copy link